Yet this spirit does not belong to the world in which it finds itself. It has fallen into a dense, material realm where it encounters the resistance of physical laws and societal structures. It is young, unshaped, and vulnerable. Recognizing this, the elders—those who have navigated existence before—introduce the spirit to technique. In its many forms—language, social norms, customs, and rituals—technique becomes the means by which the spirit learns to survive and thrive amid the rigidities of mundane existence.

At first, the technique serves as a necessary ally. It provides predictability, security, and order. It creates routine—a comforting monotony that mimics the safety of the maternal womb, alleviating the deepest existential fears. But as time passes, the technique begins to overshadow the spirit. It is deemed more reliable, prudent, and controllable. With its chaotic and unpredictable nature, the spirit is cast aside and seen as alien to the world of function and efficiency. The individual thus becomes something akin to a machine governed by patterns and habits severed from the primal force that once defined them.

This is the birth of the golem, the archetype of the mechanized human, driven by fear and an amnesia of its spiritual essence. The golem is efficient but hollow, capable of functioning within societal norms yet incapable of transcending them. It is the product of an over-reliance on technique—a being that has forgotten its original nature.

At the other end of the spectrum lies the fool, the archetype of the individual whose spirit has consumed technique entirely. The fool is ruled by impulse, existing in the eternal present like a child but without the grounding force of societal norms. They are dynamic, unpredictable, and often misunderstood. Society views the fool through two lenses:

The Optimistic Lens: The fool is revered as a beacon of the primal spirit, a reminder of what has been lost in the pursuit of order and predictability. They are envied for their freedom and authenticity. Unshackled by technique, the fool embodies the potential for genius. They can drive extraordinary breakthroughs that push humanity forward if their energy is channeled correctly.

The Pessimistic Lens: The fool is feared by those who cling to the security of technique. They are seen as disruptors of order and threats to predictability. The golems of society, having fully surrendered to technique, seek to control the fool, often through medication, confinement, or social marginalization under the guise of “normalization.”

The Glitch Within Modern Existence

In the modern world, we are caught in a paradox. We are born with hunger—a primal instinct to seek, to consume, to experience. As infants, we seek nourishment from our mother’s breast. As we grow, our hunger expands. We devour art, science, emotions, competition, and ideas. Yet we are never satisfied. The world offers infinite stimuli, and we remain perpetually engaged yet never truly fulfilled.

This insatiable hunger is the essence of the glitch. It is the disruption within the system, the irregularity, that defies predictability. The glitch is the spirit’s rebellion against the monotony of technique. It is the impulse to transcend the mundane, to break free from the constraints of routine and mechanization.

The modern world, with its relentless stream of entertainment and passive consumption, exacerbates this glitch. We are taught to receive without questioning and to consume without creating. This leaves us empty, disconnected from our true nature. Our alienation is not merely a symptom of a particular society or political system—it is woven into the very fabric of modern humanity. We are creatures of flesh and bone, yet we harbor the appetites of demigods, yearning for experiences that transcend our mortal limitations.

Some see this as a transitional phase, a step toward post-humanity. The glitch, then, is not a flaw but a signal—a call to evolve, to embrace the tension between spirit and technique, and to forge a new synthesis.

The Path Forward

The solution does not lie in rejecting technique outright nor in allowing it to dominate us completely. True liberation emerges from the integration of the two. The magician is the archetype that embodies this balance. They understand the laws of the material world (technique) but remain guided by the primal force of spirit. They are interpreters and channelers of the fool’s chaotic energy, transforming it into something meaningful and transformative.

To navigate the glitch of modern existence, we must wield technique as a tool, not as a crutch. We must embrace the spirit’s hunger—its desire for transcendence—while remaining anchored in the material world. This requires wisdom: the ability to discern the essential from the trivial, the authentic from the imposed.

Ritual provides a way forward. It is the sacred space where spirit and technique converge. In ritual, the individual becomes the center of a vast ocean of possibilities. Every neuron, every fiber of the body, and every emotion is woven into the process. The ritual is a dance with the infinite, a disruption of the limitations imposed by external forces. It is the closest we come to apotheosis—a merging with the divine essence from which we sense we originate. It is not merely a return but a remembrance of the fullness of our being.

Conclusion

We live in an age of glitches, where the tension between spirit and technique defines our existence. The challenge is not to eliminate this tension but to embrace it, to find harmony between the primal energy of the spirit and the structured order of technique. In doing so, we can transcend the limitations of the mundane and move toward a fuller, more authentic existence. The glitch is not our enemy—it is our guide, pointing us toward the infinite possibilities that lie beyond the predictable and the ordinary.

In this integration of infinity, we are truly free.

The post Spirit, Technique, and the Glitch Within Modern Existence appeared first on The Miskatonian.

From the study of highly specific cases of conflict, both past and present, we can establish the facts of what happened as best we can: what were the causes and conditions of each conflict as well as its impact on societies at the time and in the legacy it left (or spoiled) for humanity in the periods that followed? But when it comes to its ends, aside from the violence and destruction it inevitably brings, we should ask ourselves whether there are or could be any universal criteria for when war is justifiable and when it is not.

From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, the starting point would naturally be the light by which we see and test all things, holding fast to what is good, that is, Jesus Christ, the very God who sanctifies us wholly. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-23) 

Now, the Christian who wishes to justify war will encounter a stumbling block right out the gate when he thinks upon the words of Christ in the Beatitudes: Are we not exhorted to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us? (Matthew 5:44) Has not He who gives us peace not as the world gives (John 14:27) told us how worldly justice is “an eye for an eye”?

Yet Scripture also says, “Turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) and “They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

The Apostle gives us the Pauline principle: Shall we do evil that good may come? (Romans 3:8) Nay, but we return always good for evil. These words are a perfect gift from the Father of lights (James 1:17), that we might turn our hearts from the corrupt inversion of justice proposed by cynical “realists” like Machiavelli who propose to bring about a stable and benevolent state of affairs through cruel means.

Their “virtue,” which is just the power to do the possible, is not ours, which tends to perfection in the unity of the Holy Spirit. 

So those who adhere to strict pacifism, particularly of the kind that embraces nonviolent resistance to injustice rather than a purely passive non-resistance, would have their hearts in the right place, at least from this perspective.

Yet in a fallen world where our families and communities are threatened by the vicious, we have to read verses of scripture not in isolation but in line with tradition, and to understand our duties of faith in a holistic way.

“Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:3-4) Christ, too, brandished a whip against the moneychangers trespassing in the Temple. (John 2:15)

Love, that great theological virtue, is not what we practice when we are driven to wage war. Rather, we practice the cardinal virtue of justice in defending our homeland and the Church that sanctifies it. 

Justice is classically defined as giving each his due. Its Latin root, ius (right), implies setting things and relationships in proper order in accordance with nature (that given to the human being and the cosmos) by Providence. Peace, too, is a form of justice, and the cry resounds: “No justice, no peace.” 

Every civilization has something to say about when war can be justified and what norms of conduct are appropriate during a war. While the Eastern Church has no just war doctrine per se but what has been called a “justifiable war tradition,” the Western Roman Catholic perspective is worth considering because it is not only the most well-defined consideration of the topic but the one that has informed those principles now enshrined in modern international law of war, as found in the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions. The roots of this tradition are in pre-Christian philosophers like Cicero but reached their mature form only in Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas.

In just war doctrine, the primary distinction to note is between ius ad bellum (“being just in going to war”) and ius in bello (“being just in conducting war”).

The ius ad bellum criteria are as follows: 

1. Just Cause, disposing that the provocation for going to war has to be sufficiently grave, e.g. aggressive attack that provokes self-defence or mass denial of basic human rights (as in the case of genocide or cruelly abusive tyranny).
2. Comparative Justice means that one party has suffered a greater violation of justice that has to be set right than the other. It may be that each engages in unjust acts towards the other but one is more at fault, just as in a schoolyard scuffle one party bears greater responsibility for instigating the fight.
3. Legitimate Authority is based on the fact that only a publicly recognized and constituted body, usually a government, can be justified in waging war. It may seem that this puts rebels at a disadvantage, as it does, yet they may argue that the authority of the state against which they rebel has become illegitimate.
4. Right Intention, or the restriction of force to the purpose of the just cause. If one pretends to go to war for a justifiable reason but, in reality, baser motives like economic or political advantage are in the driver’s seat, the war is not truly just.
5. Probability of Success, whose self-explanatory definition states that the military action has to have a chance of succeeding. It can’t be just if it is a futile effort or one that requires extreme conduct for a victory to be possible.
6. Proportionality clarifies the previous principle as guiding that the good achieved by going to war has to be greater than the anticipated damage. A disproportionate force or futile effort violates this principle.
7. Last Resort, through which all peaceful means of resolving the dispute between the parties must have been tried in earnest and failed. Given how destructive war can be, it ought never to be the first or even the second resort. 

When we come to ius in bello, the principles are only three: 

1. Noncombatant immunity (or discrimination)
2. Proportionality
3. Right Intention

You’ll notice that two of the three repeat what was said in ius ad bellum, though they take on a different meaning when war is actually underway.

Noncombatant immunity means that one can only attack those who intend to fight on the field of battle. Civilians cannot be direct targets of attack, even though they may be key to the enemy’s supply lines and economic strength. This is a key difference from total war, where whatever means are needed to break the psychological will of the enemy to keep fighting may be employed.

Proportionality means no more force than is necessary should be used to achieve military objectives. So, do not use a machine gun where a shotgun will do or a bomb where a rifle will do. This has something to do with the virtue of prudence. If your weapons are more powerful than they need to be, or your targeting is imprecise, and civilians get caught up in the crossfire, you have a problem of justice as well. This is a big part of why deploying chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is now considered a war crime.

Right Intention means that, even in the heat of battle, you must never lose sight of the aim you set when intervening, which is to establish a just peace. Taking revenge or becoming mad with bloodlust are vicious surges of the passions that often occur in wartime; they are never virtuous. 

As clear as these principles are, to which most reasonable persons will readily assent, they get muddied in the fog of war.

The realist may object that war is a state of exception where our usual scruples do not apply, and pretending they do is to tie our hands to the advantage of those willing to fight dirty.

The pacifist may object, in descriptive though not normative agreement with the realist, that in practice, combatants advert to total war, such that just war principles function as moral camouflage; moreover, a peace established by force of arms rather than by reconciliation is fragile and fails to include the aggressor in the community of moral agents.

These are serious objections, and on a purely pragmatic basis, it may be true that either total war or nonviolent resistance is more effective in a given case. With ongoing armed conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as violent unrest in Latin America, these simple principles should be more than adequate tools you need to make judicious factual and ethical assessments about these events.

The post Augustine, Aquinas, and War appeared first on The Miskatonian.